(Afghanistan) Red Cross gives first aid lessons to Taliban

Source: the guardian

The Red Cross in Afghanistan has been teaching the Taliban basic first aid and giving insurgents medical equipment so that fighters wounded during battles with Nato and Afghan government forces can be treated in the field, it was revealed today.

More than 70 members of the "armed opposition" received training in April, the Red Cross said, in a move likely to anger the government of Hamid Karzai, which is losing large numbers of police and soldiers in insurgent attacks.

...

The Afghan ministries of defence and interior said they were unable to comment on what they described as a highly controversial issue.

A Nato spokesman in Kabul said: "Nato has tremendous respect for the humanitarian work carried out by the ICRC and we recognise the need for this work to be carried out impartially.

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/25/red-cross-first-aid-taliban

---

the afghan government finds it controversial - sounds like a joke.

ISAF medics treat Taliban wounded all the time.

do you have a link?

I could dig something up. But it's part of the Geneva Conventions. :shrug:

i haven't been able to find a single story or report on any instances.

that's odd. lack of reporting?

It's good to read all stories through that prism.

For example, here's a story from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1126730/British-troops-ward-Taliban-Soldiers-fury-wounded-wake-enemy.html">the Daily Mail about British soldiers' "outrage" at being placed in the same ward as wounded Taliban being treated. Funny thing, I remember that story as being in the Telegraph/Torygraph. :D Anyhow, consider what the purpose of running such a story would be -- something quite apart from informing the populace, eh?

amazing pic at the link:



i'll read through this.

The ICRC is completely seperate from National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies


Learn the difference here.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Cross


Very sloppy reporting from the reporter.

at DU knows there's a Red Crescent.

and agreed, very sloppy reporting indeed. thank you for posting the link, grantcart. :hi:

The ICRC is completely seperate from national Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies like the American Red Cross.

The ICRC is a Swiss humanitarian organization that works as a neutral and has unique status under international law.

If you are not familiar with the differences, like the reporter is not, you can understand it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Cross


National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies are autonomous and work together under the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.

The ICRC has a very specific and narrow function and that is why NATO has no objection to their work:


The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) is a private humanitarian institution founded in 1863 in Geneva, Switzerland by Henry Dunant. Its 25-member committee has a unique authority under international humanitarian law to protect the life and dignity of the victims of international and internal armed conflicts. The ICRC was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize on three occasions (in 1917, 1944 and 1963).<2>




Limbaugh always gets this confused when ever he opens his mouth about the Red Cross.

...having been founded in 1863.
"red cross" is not such a mistake on the part of the reporter - since the "movement" includes the icrc as well.

but i understand your point as to their range of action.

They are responsible for certifying the national Red Cross or Red Crescent (or Red Crystal) society.

After that the national societies work together in the International Council of Red Cross Societies.


But the role of the ICRC is completely different. They are the only society that is tasked with working as an officially recognized neutral organization without regard to sides, national Red Cross societies do not do this.

This is why the work in this article is nothing new, it is what the ICRC has been doing for 140 years and why bodies like the US Army and NATO support it.

The reporter is sloppy because he/she is pitching the story like it is somehow unusual or an exception. It is what the ICRC was set up to do and has always done, to provide services to all sides in a conflict. I have seen the ICRC in action and they are the best.

Those freaks! :silly:

the Red Crescent.

It is the ICRC which is not related operationally to Red Cross or Red Crescent Societies.

It operates under specific Geneva convention: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Cross

Sloppy title and first paragraph by the reporter.

an errant USA round may just happen to find it's way AGAIN to one of their warehouses. :nuke: :scared:

http://articles.sfgate.com/2001-10-27/news/17623725_1_cluster-bomb-warehouses-afghanistan

http://yorick.infinitejest.org:81/1/img/card-red_cross.jpg

While I still believe the only good Taliban man is a dead Taliban man, I don't have any problem with this.

The International Red Cross MUST be impartial. And it must be perceived as impartial.